“Apple Computer won its courtroom battle against the Beatles on Monday when a judge ruled the company’s iTunes Music Store did not infringe on the trademark of Apple Corps, which represents the band’s interests,” Reuters reports. “Apple Corps — owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, John Lennon’s widow Yoko Ono and the estate of George Harrison — has fought several courtroom battles with Apple Computer over their competing fruit-shaped logos. A 1991 out-of-court settlement, which included a $26 million payment by Apple Computer, set out areas in which each party would have exclusive use of their respective logos.
“‘I find no breach of the trademark agreement has been demonstrated,’ Mr Justice Mann said in his judgment on Monday. ‘The action therefore fails. I think the use of the apple logo is a fair and reasonable use of the mark in connection with the service,’ Mann said, referring to a central argument of Apple Corps over the use of the Apple Computer logo within the iTunes Music Store,” Reuters reports. “Apple Corps said it would appeal the decision. Apple Computer was awarded court costs.”
“The Beatles are high-profile holdouts from Internet music services like iTunes, but it emerged during the trial that Apple Corps is preparing the band’s catalog to be sold online for the first time, according to a submission by Neil Aspinall, managing director of Apple Corps and a former Beatles road manager. ‘We are glad to put this disagreement behind us,’ Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said. ‘We have always loved the Beatles, and hopefully we can now work together to get them on the iTunes Music Store.’ A spokeswoman for Apple Corps said that no decision had been made on when the Beatles’ songs would be available to purchase online.”
Full article here.
“Apple Corps must pay its rival’s legal bill, estimated at £2m, but the judge refused an interim payment of £1.5m pending further hearings,” The Beeb reports. “Apple Corps manager Neil Aspinall said: “With great respect to the trial judge, we consider he has reached the wrong conclusion. ‘We felt that during the course of the trial we clearly demonstrated just how extensively Apple Computer had broken the agreement. We will accordingly be filing an appeal and putting the case again to the Court of Appeal.'”
Full article here.
“With appeals of this kind generally unsuccessful, however, Apple Corps likely need even more than a little help from its friends if it wants to win next time around,” Parmy Olson writes for Forbes today.
The Times Online has the Apple Corps v Apple Computer judgement in full here.
MacDailyNews Take: Monday morning turning back… Pick up the bags and get in the limousine… Step on the gas and wipe that tear away, one sweet dream came true today.* Can’t wait for the appeal, although you’d think that by now, The Beatles would be smarter to just Let it Be.
[*Can anyone name The Beatles song from whence the quoted lyrics sprang?]
Advertisements:
• Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
• Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• Apple’s brand new iPod Hi-Fi speaker system. Home stereo. Reinvented. Available now for $349 with free shipping.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
Related articles:
Report: Apple vs. Apple judgement to be handed down May 8th – April 28, 2006
Beatles’ Apple vs. Jobs’ Apple closing arguments; judge’s ruling due toward end of April – April 05, 2006
Apple vs. Apple likely be in judge’s hands by Wednesday – April 03, 2006
Apple lawyer: ‘Even a moron in a hurry’ can tell difference between iTunes and Beatles’ Apple Corps – March 30, 2006
Apple vs. Apple opening arguments begin in UK High Court – March 29, 2006
Beatles’ Apple vs. Jobs’ Apple goes to UK High Court this Wednesday – March 26, 2006
Apple Computer and The Beatles’ AppleCorp should stop fighting in court and work together instead – July 27, 2005
Beatles vs. Apple Computer: outcome is far from a lock for Beatles – September 30, 2004
Apple vs. Apple settlement to result in iTunes Music Store Beatles exclusive? – September 23, 2004
Apple’s iTunes Music Store to land exclusive Beatles deal? – September 20, 2004
Apple vs. Beatles could be solved with fat check and spinning off iTunes from Apple Computer – September 17, 2004
Apple’s settlement with Beatles could be ‘biggest settlement in legal history’ – September 13, 2004
The Beatles to sell songs via Apple iTunes Music Store? – June 09, 2004
Apple loses: Apple v. Beatles to be heard in Britain – April 06, 2004
Beatles’ Apple vs. Jobs’ Apple; 1991 agreement allows for ‘data transmission services, even music’ – February 26, 2004
Apple Computer to contest Beatles’ U.K. lawsuit in court today – February 25, 2004
Jobs: Apple vs. Apple ‘could drag on for years – it’s unfortunate because we love the Beatles’ – September 28, 2003
Forbes: Apple vs. Apple; iTunes Music Store just might end up with exclusive Beatles deal – September 12, 2003
Sosumi: more on the Beatles’ lawsuit against Apple Computer, Inc. – September 12, 2003
The Beatles sue Apple Computer over iPod, iTunes – September 12, 2003
The Beatles’ Apple Records could be gearing up for fight with Apple Computer – August 12, 2003
The Beatles gearing up for a fight over Apple’s iTunes Music Store – June 03, 2003
Justice.
It’s about time. Suck it, Yoko!
So, Apple Corp certainly won’t be ‘Glad all over’ ho ho!
How often are appeals successful over there?
Beatle who…wha?
About time there was some common sense about this issue. Who confuses Apple Corps with Apple Computer and iTunes? Beatles on iTunes next week? LOL!
No wonder they lost. Their logic was ‘Here, there and everywhere’.
They should have just ‘Let it be’.
What a pleasant surprise!
Gawd those green ads are tacky.
Suck it Yoko indeed!
All this effort has got them absolutely ‘Nowhere Man’.
The lyrics are from my song “You Never Give Me Your Money”. That hack Lennon had nothing to do with this tune. I’m a genius, except in court.
MDN the song is
“You Never Give Me Your Money”
How can a band so innovative in the 60’s be so useless today? Their music is JUST NOW getting updated for distribution on the web.
That’s forward thinking.
Hey Yoko…
“Oh that Magic Feeling….Nowhere to go”.
Honest! MDN Magic Word: Let……Too easy
As for an appeal – can they win it? ‘That’ll be the day’!
damn!
Im glad the judge has seen who is actually creating in a proactive way, and who is living on the past success of a great band.
Lyrics from Abbey Road.
You Never Give Me Your Money
I know it’s common practice but Apple Corps has to pay Appl’s court costs. Ha Ha! That’s gotta be a pretty hefty bill. Doesn’t that include their lawyers also?
“You Never Give Me Your Money”
The judge’s name is Justice Mann? How cool is that?
Opps! I meant to say, “Lyrics from Abbey Road Medely.”
Billy Bob,
Its only common practice to have to pay the other party’s legal costs in the UK and other countries that follow that form of law. In the US it is UNcommon. For personal suits it almost never happens and even in business deals it only happens if it is a contract dispute between the parties (rare) or if a specific law provides for it (more rare). A loser pays system like this would, in some circumstances, make people less suit happy and more likely to weigh their case before going to court.
And this was a British court that ruled against Apple Corps.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
They should have filed in Los Angeles, celebrities get better treatment in L.A. courts.
Apple Corps likely need even more than a little help from its friends if it wants to win next time around,” Parmy Olson writes for Forbes today.
Friends? Will they have any left if they keep up these kinds of shenanigans?
I hope this is “The End”, or will it drag on to “when I’m 64”? Is it just about “Money”? Maybe that “lady, madonna” should buy the collection and put it on line. Otherwise I’ll have to go to a russian site and buy them “Back in the USSR”.
The Beatles are so pathetic for appealing this decision. This only damages their reputation even more. If they were smart they would stop suing Apple, and they could be earning millions every year by allowing their music to be sold exclusively on the iTMS.
I pity the fools
what’s with the link ads.
this website is really starting to suck. reminds me of spymac.
Maybe this is why Paul and Heather McCartney are on the verge of breaking up (according to the reputable British tabloid press)?
Maybe this is why Paul and Heather McCartney are on the verge of breaking up (according to the reputable British tabloid press)?
Maybe this is why Paul and Heather McCartney are on the verge of breaking up (according to the reputable British tabloid press)?
Maybe this is why Paul and Heather McCartney are on the verge of breaking up (according to the reputable British tabloid press)?
Not Here,
I actually had to go to court a few years back. The suit/counter suit both included that exact stipulation. I was told it was common practice. We ended up settling out of court and ending up paying our own costs.
FOXNEWS.COM HAD THIS STORY HOURS AGO. YOU GUYS SPECIALIZE IN APPLE RELATED NEWS? WHAT WERE YOU DOING SLEEPING? PUUHHLEASE!
Now, I hope that we start seeing Bealtes song on iTunes and other services.
Brian Allen
Uhm, it’s the “Sun King Medley
Magic word “small” as in “no small feat”
jigger, get PithHelmet and live ad free.
Sun king Medly — Abbey Road Album
if they do indeed appeal, they will truly look pathetic. Apple Corps, it is not that big a deal. If you join forces with iTunes, you will benefit enourmously.
Apple corps is like Eleanor Rigby….lives in a dream….
“The Beatles are so pathetic for appealing this decision”
Hey, it’s not the Beatles suing, it’s Apple Corps. John and George are both dead; there is no Beatles anymore.
Apple Corps.
Please give it a rest. What do you care about Apple Corporation? You guys haven’t done anything in over 20 years. No one is going to confuse one with the other.
P. C. Thirty-one said, “We caught a dirty one.”
Maxwell stands alone
Painting testimonial pictures.
Oh, oh, oh, oh.
Rose and Valerie, screaming from the gallery
Say he must go free
(Maxwell must go free)
The judge does not agree and he tells them
So, o, o, o.
Can you “Imagine” how many illegal Beatles downloads have taken place and do everyday because people can’t buy any of The Beatles online?
A amazingly poor run Record label and publisher that Apple Corp.
Azzholes.
I think it would be more accurate to say that Apple Corps represents the interests of the REMAINING Beatles.
Hey Dirty Pierre!
“Glad All Over” was by The Dave Clarke Five, not The Beatles.
Ed.
Shut it, troll.
Good for Apple.
“Phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust!”
Who watches Fox news?
Responsible Journalists wait for the facts and verifies them before spewing out rubbish in a race to be first.
Remember, Its Fox not Fax (facts).
Hey, Apple Records: There’s a computer company called Apple Computer. Get over it already. You’ve been bitching about it for 30 years! I don’t think it’s harmed your millions and millions of dollars in any way. Jesus fucking christ.
It’s called the iPod & iTunes. The only thing constant is constant change.. The cabal of lawyers a.k.a. Apple Corps has finally gotten their comeuppance. I’m sure the plaintiffs are familiar with karma. It can be a bitch. Ask Michel Dell.
I don’t agree with the loser pays the other’s legal bills. If a big company does you wrong and spends a good deal of money protecting itself, and then wins, it has little to lose.
Now what if you’re the little guy? Care to pay for Marlboro’s legal bill?
That’s one way to discourage legitmate cases. Now if the judge found the case frivolous, then I would agree.
All you posters making puns out of Beatles song titles in this thread realize you’re going to sued for infringement, right?
“Say you don’t need no diamond ring and I’ll be satisfied
Tell me that you want the kind of thing that money just can’t buy
I don’t care too much for money, money can’t buy me love”
by Lennon & McCartney
zupchuck, I agree with you. I think “loser pays” system would be good to import into the U.S., but not in the case where a corporation is suing an individual or an individual is suing a corporation. It should only apply to person vs. person and corporation vs. corporation. I also think that the person being sued should never be responsible for the legal fees of the person who filed the lawsuit, no matter who wins. But if you sue somebody and you lose, you should have to pay their legal fees. It would make people less likely to file frivolous lawsuits, and it would keep legal fees from ruining people’s lives when they win.
You don’t know the history of trademark infringement.
I do.
“See the people standing there who disagree and never win
And wonder why they don’t get in my door.
I’m painting my room in the colourful way
And when my mind is wandering
There I will go.
And it really doesn’t matter if
I’m wrong I’m right
Where I belong I’m right”
Lennon & McCartney
“Try to see it my way,
Only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong.
While you see it your way
There’s a chance that we may fall apart before too long.
We can work it out,
We can work it out. “
Lennon & McCartney
All you need is love…
Hurrah for Apple!! (Apple computer, that is.)
http://getkickedoffaplanewearingthis.blogspot.com/
zupchuck & Jooop:
We have a very complex legal aid system here in the UK, to prevent the little guy having to pay up to a large corporation.
I, myself, have never understood the so-called infringement in the first place.
Apple (at the time) had a rainbow colored whole apple with a bite out of it.
Beatles had a Granny Smith (Golden Delicious?) apple cut in half, seeds and all.
Where’s the beef?
always liked the doors better.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Hey, you greedy, crooked Beatles assholes, take it up the ass!
I’m so confused! Do the Beatles make the iMac? Does Apple Computer own the rights to Hey Jude?
I’m not going to buy Yoko’s new CD because of this.
Hey Tom Cruise… eeerrrrrr… Professor Bunson Mellonhead: Still at it I see. Why don’t you try some new… eeerrrrr… original content, loser?
As it is, Apple Corp – which, as the loser, must pay the winner’s costs – will be left with a multi-million pound legal bill.
The court was told yesterday that Computer had racked up legal expenses of £1.8m by January, when Corps’ own costs were around £1m. Since then, the trial costs themselves will have added substantially to both bills.
It never ceases to amaze me – the sheer ignorance of this younger generation…such as:
Billy Bob
gow
MacMind
Buster
JEG
You Say You Wat A Revolution…
imagine
Do you folks have any idea how profoundly idiotic your comments are? I am sure you haven’t the slightest clue. Then again, you probably think Fallout Boy and Hawthorne Heights is actually “music”
You ignorant twits make the case for exactly WHY Apple Computers was sued. Seeing as how Apple Corps TRADEMARKED the name “Apple” first, Apple Corps – regardless if they are currently producing music or not – has the right to use that name and to PROTECT THEIR RIGHT to use that name exclusively. Apple Computers are lucky that Apple Corps allowed them to continue to even use “Apple” after their first lawsuit. They could have shut Apple down but instead ALLOWED them to operate using that name with one caveat – don’t get into the music business. Apple’s foray into the music business with iTunes was ambiguous enough that it DID merit a re-examination of trademark infringment.
The very fact that you dipsh*ts listed above generally remark – “When people hear the name Apple they think of the iPod and iTunes” – well, that is the exact reason to sue Apple Computer! But i have a feeling you folks are too stupid to EVER grasp that concept.
Please – if you guys really are the future of the world, do mankind a favor now and just shoot yourselves. You are embarassments to the human race.
Chris:
“They could have shut Apple down but instead ALLOWED them to operate using that name with one caveat – don’t get into the music business. Apple’s foray into the music business with iTunes was ambiguous enough that it DID merit a re-examination of trademark infringment.”
Quoting http://www.Thinksecret.com (a real Mac news and rumors page), regarding the judge in the case:
“He explained that Apple Computer “does not have the right” to use its logo to refer to its online music content as a trade connection with the company, but that as long as “the mark is used in a reasonable and fair way on or in connection with the service,” then the line has not been crossed and Apple has not breached its contract with Apple Corps.”
So the caveat was not as sweeping as “don’t get into the music business” may sound; it was in effect more like “don’t become a record label and compete with us at our own business”.
Ironically, Apple’s iTunes only serves to increase profits for Apple Corps, not compete with them. Maybe they’ll need that extra profit – now that they started this foolish court battle that they can’t win.
Ask 100,000 people in the 18-35 age group (the iTunes primary market) and ask them what they think of when I say Apple. I’ll bet you less than 2% say The Beatles. I’ll bet you more than 2/3rds say either Macintosh Computers or iPod. Trademark my a*s. How many decades since a new release was issued under the Apple label? Most of the folks posting probably were not even born. Give me a break. It’s nothing more than trolling for money.
“Ask 100,000 people in the 18-35 age group (the iTunes primary market) and ask them what they think of when I say Apple. I’ll bet you less than 2% say The Beatles.”
Thanks for proving my point once again.
I could not care less how relevant the Apple label is – the fact reamins that Apple Corps trademarked the name first.
Chris…
Volkswagen have a car called Polo. The name is also used by a mint and pre-dates the car. I don’t recall VW being taken to court.
Trademarking the name Apple has limits. Adam got there first..
I believe that one of the arguments made by Apple Corps was that they also wanted to get into the world wide digital music distribution business like Yahoo, Google, Sony, Weedshare, Napster, Emusic and all the other mega big time top contenders to iTunes.
Nick:
Thanks for the link. Interesting points presented. If this is the legal logic Apple Corps wishes to challenge, they have apprently lost before the ink had dried on the submission to appeal.
Chris:
I heard that Paul McCartney is suing Granny Smith.
Chris:
No wait, Granny Smith is suing Paul McCartney and Apple Corps. Sorry, my mistake, it’s getting difficult to tell which apple is suing another apple without a decent program.
George Harrison sang lead vocals on ‘Glad all over’
Only fools get hung up on brands. Be it Nike, Apple, or Apple.
Do I buy a product because it has a famous logo on it? No way! I don’t buy something from ‘Apple records’ because they published the legends that are the Beatles. I buy records because they say ‘The Beatles’.
Same goes for other things. If I want to buy an MP3 player, I buy an MP3 player that can do x, y and z. I don’t buy something because there is an ‘Apple Computers’ logo on it.
It’s taken the ‘competition’ a couple of years to pick up, but right now, there are loads of MP3 players out there that work more or less the same (so they’re less pretty. What am I gonna do, LISTEN TO or LOOK AT the thing?) and that are a fraction of the price of a ‘real Apple product’. For that big a price-difference, I can easily do without a friggin thumbwheel.
If others feel charitable, they can buy iPods all they want. I get the cheap clone. If others are too lazy too think with their wallets, they can buy Dell computers. I buy a bag of parts and build a custom PC for a fraction of the price. If others are so generous, they can buy real Macs. I buy a… a… hang on. I can’t buy a cheap Mac or -clone!
OK, one less unit sold. Too bad, I like using OSX (on the job, I have both systems), but not for that price!
“The Beatles are so pathetic for appealing this decision. This only damages their reputation even more.”
Idiot, its not the beatles its Apple Corps, the Beatles were a band not a corporation, The Beatles didnt appeal this, it would be hard considering half of them are dead, and ringo and mccartney have nothing to do with apple anymore.
Arent you all forgetting that apple corps trademarked their name years before apple computers?
And that apple comp getting into the music business with itunes did bring up issues with the agreement between the two companies. I agree with the desicion and im glad that its over.
The one thing i dont like about the apple crowd is that thier so damn biased, thrie like repbulicans, they only see the apple side of the story. Thanks thats all.
MacBook lover:
I’ve heard of eatin’ apples, cookin’ apples, red apples, green apples, apple trees, applesauce, “How about them apples?”, and Apple computer.
Never heard of Apple Corps until the lawsuits began. What is the relevance of Apple Corps if it has existed in virtual obscurity for more than 2 decades?
You keep on forgetting the issue!
I love apple computers they’re great, and im glad that the whole lawsuit is over, but everyone keeps forgetting (or chooses to forget) that apple corps trademarked thier name before apple computers, so therefore by law they own rights to that name. apple comp and apple corp signed a deal a long time ago that staed that nethier would infringe on each others business areas, which brought the question of whether apple comp broke that agreement with itunes.
i said it before everyone here seems to be extemely biased and is forgeting the facts, plese look at it neutrally youll see where im coming from.
The Beatles’ Apple Corps recently lost the lawsuit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. But have you also heard? Apple Corps will again sue Apple Computer, this time for use of the name “Mac” for their line of computers. Of course, before being dubbed “Sir Paul,” Paul McCartney had often been known simply as “Mac.”
Legal experts say that there is little chance that this latest lawsuit will succeed, in light of the failure of similar previous actions that were brought by the famous vegetarian against McDonald’s for its “Big Mac” sandwich in the ’70s. At that time, McDonald’s had countersued, claiming that it had earlier, and sole rights, to the two letters “M-C” preceding anything, including last names. Those cases were both dismissed, after testimony from Kraft, about its “Mac and Cheese” products.
Paul had this to say, “We’re not talking here about apples or oranges. What about right and left, you know? There’s a big difference between this and using it as a first name. I’d never said anything to Mick in the Stones. We were both really cool about it.”
And Ringo, who had been left out of this latest legal tussle, had this to say through a spokesman, “We’re checking out various legal aspects of the word “star” in the corporate domain, in addition to geometric shapes of that same name. Peace.”